Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

National CAA policies around Europe on busting pilots who bust controlled airspace (and danger areas)

But the rules are the same – if you don’t file standard airways, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN.

I don’t agree, because any flight in CAS under ATC control (which in Europe is nearly always under radar control) is supervised closely by ATC and not busting RAs etc is their problem. To argue otherwise is to argue that you could never ask for a shortcut.

It is a very UK view that this clearance has no real meaning.

I don’t agree, because you can get, at say a German airport, a “cleared to EGKA” when actually EGKA is in Class G and just for fun there is an RA to the east of it, so that clearance has no meaning and cannot possibly have any meaning. It is just a ritual form of words, except for EDDM-KPHX type of traffic. I still think you would get off on a prosecution though, with a competent lawyer.

Nothing surprises me about the UK ATC system anymore, but what you say is not true according to international standards. A clearance is valid to its clearance limit. Period. The pilot is not required to understand the sectorisation applied by ATC. If the clearance will take you through airspace controlled by someone else then ATC must coordinate.

That is correct. In the UK they will try to screw the pilot for that but they don’t actually prosecute AFAIK.

A variant of that is adjoining airspace where you are cleared to the first portion but the owner of the second one refuses… I’ve had that in Italy so not just a UK issue. It also happens frequently in France where you get a great shortcut through something and very late the ATCO gets a phone call from the next bit (usually some mil unit) telling him to get that bloody traffic out of there FAST – I collect plenty of such examples on video. So there will always be cases where forward coordination fails, but the pilot should never get busted for that.

But, we have done the “clearance limit” thing before. Most of the time no such limit is stated to the pilot.

The root of it all is a fragmented system operated as a series of private fiefdoms.

Yes, and [almost] nobody gets prosecuted for alleged busts, because those in power know that any half decent (say, more than 2.5k/day ) lawyer would tear it apart.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Graham wrote:

(and the Cardiff/Bristol zones are Class D) a pilot in the UK is in fact required to understand the sectorisation, if they wish to transit the airspace. UK Class D operates as a series of private fiefdoms and the fact that two or more fiefdoms may adjoin each other does not entitle a pilot to treat them as one in terms of getting a clearance to enter.

And it is completely bonkers, and sets pilots up to fail. Imagine you are in the Cardiff CTA heading south at FL55, and Cardiff has cleared you for a transit under radar control service and you’re halfway across the Bristol Channel. You remember this thread on EuroGA and you ask Cardiff “am I controlled into Bristol’s airspace”, they say standby because they forgot to arrange it – but you’re in a Bonanza doing 170kt and rapidly approaching the abutting boundary of Cardiff/Bristol.

If you decide to orbit, you’re now in violation of your transit clearance with Cardiff because you’re under a radar control service and didn’t expect you to do that so you tell them you’re going to orbit until they confirm you can enter Bristol’s airspace, which then upsets them and gets you a MOR as they had some other traffic that they hoped to route behind you.

If you decide to keep your course, you violate Bristol’s airspace.

It’s a highly unsatisfactory situation, and it’s the pilot who gets punished for it, not the regulator for allowing this kind of bravo-sierra to go on in the first place, or the ANSP for not making sure you’re cleared through all abutting airspace like you would in any normal country.

Last Edited by alioth at 10 Jun 12:39
Andreas IOM

Graham wrote:

…I think the terminology is no longer used in the UK – probably to avoid precisely this problem.

What does clearance delivery at Heathrow tell a commercial flight “on Airways” to Paris?

The potential problem arises on an international flight into the UK where the first controller gives you such a clearance. ATC might quibble (I imagine) about what ‘revokes’ a clearance. I doubt it would stand up to any practical scrutiny, but in theory someone might make a case that when you get the first DCT to some point not on your route, or even some out-of-sequence DCT (a shortcut) that effectively revoked your original clearance because at that point you are no longer following the filed plan exactly.

That doesn’t revoke your original clearance – it amends the clearance.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Peter wrote:

I don’t agree, because you can get, at say a German airport, a “cleared to EGKA” when actually EGKA is in Class G and just for fun there is an RA to the east of it, so that clearance has no meaning and cannot possibly have any meaning.

It has a perfectly clear meaning. It means that you are cleared through those parts of your route which are in class A-E airspace. Obviously not any parts which are OCAS. Also it doesn’t give you permission to cross any D/R/P-areas OCAS.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

It has a perfectly clear meaning. It means that you are cleared through those parts of your route which are in class A-E airspace. Obviously not any parts which are OCAS. Also it doesn’t give you permission to cross any D/R/P-areas OCAS.

Where does it say that, in ICAO or elsewhere?

but I would regard this question as irrelevant because a clearance stays a clearance…

@malibuflyer, what airspace class was the German pilot flying in?

We have done this many times. Class E-G is not capable of supporting an “airspace clearance” for VFR, and Class F-G is not capable of supporting an “airspace clearance” for IFR. Such clearances can be issued but have no meaning.

In the UK there is the additional dimension that “not supporting a clearance” = “your existing clearance, and usually your flight plan, are binned”, but that’s a different topic

What does clearance delivery at Heathrow tell a commercial flight “on Airways” to Paris?

Same as Scilly Isles told me last September ; the difference being that the former flight is wholly in CAS, whereas the same clearance on the latter (which I did get) would get me busted at Exeter, the busted at Bournemouth, then busted at Southampton. Practically speaking, I would need a good lawyer (and would absolutely get one).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

What does clearance delivery at Heathrow tell a commercial flight “on Airways” to Paris?

Yes they tell them cleared to Paris as filed, but that flight will never leave Class A airspace so the issue cannot arise.

What I mean is that regional airports in the UK do not use the phrase when delivering a clearance to light GA IFR traffic.

EGLM & EGTN

Airborne_Again wrote:

That doesn’t revoke your original clearance – it amends the clearance.

As I said, that would be my understanding too but it is very susceptible to being quibbled over by a regulator who wanted to nail a pilot. They might argue “Yes, it amends it. It amends it DCT and no further.”

In the UK we’re not dealing with a regulator that wants to work with you to help things happen as they should. We’re dealing with a regulator that is quite happy to make some fairly absurd arguments to ensure the pilot remains in the wrong when the inconsistencies in the system are exposed.

For instance, they argue that to enter an ATZ without a specific 2-way radio exchange passing airfield information with the relevant A/G or AFISO unit is an airspace infringement. They also argue that to enter a danger area which has no bylaw preventing entry is an airspace infringement.

EGLM & EGTN

Graham wrote:

For instance, they argue that to enter an ATZ without a specific 2-way radio exchange passing airfield information with the relevant A/G or AFISO unit is an airspace infringement.

That does not reflect my practical experience: More often than not I receive the approach clearance (which is perfectly valid for the entire approach up to the threshold obviously including the clearance to enter the ATZ) from radar or approach. The tower typically only gives me the landing clearance.

Graham wrote:

They might argue “Yes, it amends it. It amends it DCT and no further.”

Actually yes and no: If you receive a DCT to a waypoint that is on the route that you have been cleared for earlier, you do not have a problem as your original clearance remains valid. Only if your receive a DCT to a waypoint that has never been on your clearance, you are potentially running into trouble.

It’s the same question that happens with any clearance with clearance limit: If you reach the clearance limit prior to obtaining a new clearance, you have to hold over the clearance limit and hope that at some point in time the controller will let you know how to proceed.

But that has little to do with the “UK interpretation” that once you touch uncontrolled airspace any clearance already given for controlled airspace further down your track is automatically void…

Germany

Cobalt wrote:

if you don’t file standard airways, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN.

Malibuflyer wrote:

Don’t agree to that. Might be, that ATC will not clear you as planned because they say you should not fly there – but in my opinion it’s not the role of the pilot to double check airspaces in any direct you get.

Note that I write FILE, not when ATC proactively gives you a DCT clearance, so I agree with your view.

However, if you FILE or REQUEST a DCT clearance, it all depends on where in the world you are.

  • In a non-radar environment, you may fly into a mountain in CAS (=well, technically below CAS). It HAS happened to airliners before TAWS / EGPWS
  • You may all of the sudden hear “You are leaving controlled airspace, cleared to leave frequency”, and then wonder what happens later down-route. Can’t happen in Germany with CAS down to 2,500ft AGL or lower pretty much everywhere, but can happen elsewhere.

My point is – it is the PICs job to not fly into hard stuff, and to not fly where he shouldn’t. ATC helps, but they won’t do their job for you 100% of the time.

IFPS checking hundreds of little things, and ATC taking good care of us 99% of the time lulls us into the false security that it keeps us legal. It doesn’t.

Last Edited by Cobalt at 10 Jun 14:54
Biggin Hill

Malibuflyer wrote:

if your receive a DCT to a waypoint that has never been on your clearance, you are potentially running into trouble. [,,,] If you reach the clearance limit prior to obtaining a new clearance, you have to hold over the clearance limit and hope that at some point in time the controller will let you know how to proceed.

That does not really happen in practice. Any half-awake pilot approaching the clearance limit and NOT told in advance to hold will query ATC before reaching that point. Likewise a pilot who is requesting an ad hoc airspace transit and does NOT get a hand-over to the neighbour should query ATC.

In reality, if the next action is reasonably obvious (such as getting back to the route after DCT to a waypoint not quite on it) I tend to day “Approaching XXX, confirm DCT [waypoint on route]”.

Biggin Hill
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top